Krishni Wijesooriya1,2, Nilanga K Liyanage2, Maduka Kaluarachchi2, Daren Sawkey3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. 2. Department of Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA. 3. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., 3120 Hansen way, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A good Monte Carlo model with an accurate head shielding model is important in estimating the long-term risks of unwanted radiation exposure during radiation therapy. The aim of this paper was to validate the Monte Carlo simulation of a TrueBeam linear accelerator (linac) head shielding model. We approach this by evaluating the accuracy of out-of-field dose predictions at extended distances which are comprised of scatter from within the patient and treatment head leakage and thus reflect the accuracy of the head shielding model. We quantify the out-of-field dose of a TrueBeam linac for low-energy photons, 6X and 6X-FFF beams, and compare measurements to Monte Carlo simulations using Varian VirtuaLinac that include a realistic head shielding model, for a variety of jaw sizes and angles up to a distance of 100 cm from the isocenter, in both positive and negative directions. Given the high value and utility of the VirtuaLinac model, it is critical that this model is validated thoroughly and the results be available to the medical physics community. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Simulations were done using VirtuaLinac, the GEANT4-based Monte Carlo model of the TrueBeam treatment head from Varian Medical Systems, and an in-house GEANT4-based code. VirtuaLinac included a detailed model of the treatment head shielding and was run on the Amazon Web Services cloud to generate spherical phase space files surrounding the treatment head. These phase space files were imported into the in-house code, which modeled the measurement setup with a solid water buildup, the carbon fiber couch, and the gantry stand. For each jaw size (2 × 2 cm2 , 4 × 4 cm2 , 10 × 10 cm2 , and 20 × 20 cm2 ) and angular setting (0°, 90°, 45°, 135°), the dose was calculated at intervals of 5 cm along each measurement direction. RESULTS: For the 10 × 10 cm2 jaw size, both 6X and 6X-FFF showed very good agreement between simulation and measurement in both in-plane directions, with no apparent systematic bias. The percentage deviations for these settings were as follows: (mean, STDEV, maximum) (8.34, 6.44, 24.84) for 6X and (13.21, 8.93, 35.56) for 6X-FFF. For all jaw sizes, simulation agreed well in the in-plane direction going away from the gantry, but, some deviations were observed moving toward the gantry at larger distances. At larger distances, for the jaw sizes smaller than 10 × 10 cm2 , the simulation underestimates the dose compared with measurement, while for jaw sizes larger than 10 × 10 cm2 , it overestimates dose. For all comparisons between ±50 cm from isocenter, average absolute agreement between simulation and measurement was better than 28%. CONCLUSION: We have validated the Varian VirtuaLinac's head shielding model via out-of-field doses and quantified the differences between TrueBeam head shielding model created out-of-field doses and measurements for an extended distance of 100 cm.
PURPOSE: A good Monte Carlo model with an accurate head shielding model is important in estimating the long-term risks of unwanted radiation exposure during radiation therapy. The aim of this paper was to validate the Monte Carlo simulation of a TrueBeam linear accelerator (linac) head shielding model. We approach this by evaluating the accuracy of out-of-field dose predictions at extended distances which are comprised of scatter from within the patient and treatment head leakage and thus reflect the accuracy of the head shielding model. We quantify the out-of-field dose of a TrueBeam linac for low-energy photons, 6X and 6X-FFF beams, and compare measurements to Monte Carlo simulations using Varian VirtuaLinac that include a realistic head shielding model, for a variety of jaw sizes and angles up to a distance of 100 cm from the isocenter, in both positive and negative directions. Given the high value and utility of the VirtuaLinac model, it is critical that this model is validated thoroughly and the results be available to the medical physics community. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Simulations were done using VirtuaLinac, the GEANT4-based Monte Carlo model of the TrueBeam treatment head from Varian Medical Systems, and an in-house GEANT4-based code. VirtuaLinac included a detailed model of the treatment head shielding and was run on the Amazon Web Services cloud to generate spherical phase space files surrounding the treatment head. These phase space files were imported into the in-house code, which modeled the measurement setup with a solid water buildup, the carbon fiber couch, and the gantry stand. For each jaw size (2 × 2 cm2 , 4 × 4 cm2 , 10 × 10 cm2 , and 20 × 20 cm2 ) and angular setting (0°, 90°, 45°, 135°), the dose was calculated at intervals of 5 cm along each measurement direction. RESULTS: For the 10 × 10 cm2 jaw size, both 6X and 6X-FFF showed very good agreement between simulation and measurement in both in-plane directions, with no apparent systematic bias. The percentage deviations for these settings were as follows: (mean, STDEV, maximum) (8.34, 6.44, 24.84) for 6X and (13.21, 8.93, 35.56) for 6X-FFF. For all jaw sizes, simulation agreed well in the in-plane direction going away from the gantry, but, some deviations were observed moving toward the gantry at larger distances. At larger distances, for the jaw sizes smaller than 10 × 10 cm2 , the simulation underestimates the dose compared with measurement, while for jaw sizes larger than 10 × 10 cm2 , it overestimates dose. For all comparisons between ±50 cm from isocenter, average absolute agreement between simulation and measurement was better than 28%. CONCLUSION: We have validated the Varian VirtuaLinac's head shielding model via out-of-field doses and quantified the differences between TrueBeam head shielding model created out-of-field doses and measurements for an extended distance of 100 cm.
Authors: Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska; Agnieszka Skrobala; Piotr Romanski; Adam Ryczkowski; Wiktoria Suchorska; Katarzyna Kulcenty; Igor Piotrowski; Dorota Borowicz; Kinga Graczyk; Natalia Matuszak; Julian Malicki Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-04-23